Turn on thread page Beta

Corbyn ally says should have "cups of tea" with ISIS not airstrikes watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They armed jihadist militia groups in Lybia, who included the group who were to become Isis. Given that the US also funded AQ in Afghanisatn, you can excuse people for not trusting their judgement.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    ISIS's background long predates the Libyan conflict and was created from Iraqi groups. I'm confused as to where you're getting your information from.

    Once again, the US did not fund, supply or have any co-operation with Osama Bin Laden and the foreign mujahideen contingent in Afghanistan. They did not in any way shape or form fund Al Qaeda, or even the people that would go on to form Al Qaeda before the group existed. It is a fiction that does not have any evidence to support it that unfortunately has been blindly parroted by the left so much that they now believe it as gospel.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They armed jihadist militia groups in Lybia, who included the group who were to become Isis.
    I'm sorry but it's just painful to debate with someone who is so ignorant. ISIS comes from Iraq, it was originally called Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Ffs, read a history book sometime, maybe

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islami...9.E2.80.932006

    Given that the US also funded AQ in Afghanisatn, you can excuse people for not trusting their judgement.
    Again, Al-Qaeda didn't even exist until around 1993/4, several years after the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan and the US funding was cut off (1989).

    You can excuse people for not trusting you given your painful historical ignorance
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Is this whole thread in honour of Corbyn avatar acupofgreentea ?!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    ISIS's background long predates the Libyan conflict and was created from Iraqi groups. I'm confused as to where you're getting your information from.

    Once again, the US did not fund, supply or have any co-operation with Osama Bin Laden and the foreign mujahideen contingent in Afghanistan. They did not in any way shape or form fund Al Qaeda, or even the people that would go on to form Al Qaeda before the group existed. It is a fiction that does not have any evidence to support it that unfortunately has been blindly parroted by the left so much that they now believe it as gospel.
    Jinx. Hehe ;-)

    His ignorance is painful, isn't it? ISIS is the successor of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq organisation, as you rightly point out. It was substantially formed in 2003 in response to the American invasion of Iraq, it has always been a blood enemy of the United States. No conspiracy, no secret support
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Jinx. Hehe ;-)

    His ignorance is painful, isn't it? ISIS is the successor of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq organisation, as you rightly point out. It was substantially formed in 2003 in response to the American invasion of Iraq, it has always been a blood enemy of the United States. No conspiracy, no secret support
    I think it helps their anti-war narrative if they can blame us for starting the conflicts in the first place by creating the groups we're now at war with. Never mind the truth. Then to make it worse he's citing a previous fictional example (Al Qaeda in Afghanistan) that didn't happen to support his current claim that didn't happen!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VladThe1mpaler)
    Continuous bombing and killing won't work. We need to find out why people are joining ISIS and how we can stop them from joining them.
    Why won't it work? Total annihilation of the enemy achieved through war has a good track record. The problem is when we don't achieve total victory, only a half-arsed one.
    We know why people are joining ISIS. It's because unfortunately the extremist Salafist narrative has an attractive allure to a lot of Muslims and we're not doing enough to combat that.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It most certainly did. Funded and armed the group that later became ISIS. They armed the Jihad u group in Libya.
    Just like the US funded and armed the group that later became Al Qaeda.

    Stop shutting down the debate. People can legitimately oppose the current war. Not because they support Isis, but because they don't think the current tactics will work.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The US never funded al qaeda. The US provided funds to the Pakistani ISI that in turn funded the afghan Mujhadeen. That group in turn broke up into the Northern alliance and other afghan groups. There are some links between these figures and the taliban, though not many.

    There was no forerunner to Al qaeda. There was only al qaeda, founded by bin Laden and his circle.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Why won't it work? Total annihilation of the enemy achieved through war has a good track record. The problem is when we don't achieve total victory, only a half-arsed one.
    We know why people are joining ISIS. It's because unfortunately the extremist Salafist narrative has an attractive allure to a lot of Muslims and we're not doing enough to combat that.
    They say you can't destroy an ideology with bombs. Except that's precisely what we did in World War 2 with Germany and Japan. We used force of arms to militarily defeat and subjugate two extremely dangerous and fanatical regimes, and forced them to reform so that today both Germany and Japan are keystones states of the Western alliance and the international multilateral system.

    Thus far we have fought the war against ISIS in a very nimble and shrewd way; we've killed 27,000 of them for the loss of only 2 soldiers of the Western alliance. Clearly we have learned lessons from Iraq where American soldiers were paraded day after day in front of insurgents to be IED'd and as a result 4,000 died. This time, we are fighting in a way that plays to our advantages, not theirs.

    And honestly, if the hard left wouldn't fight now, when it involves an enemy that is a direct threat to us and which has slaughtered our citizens by the dozens in the streets of European capitals, that is conducting genocide campaigns against ethnic minorities, that whips up sedition amongst our own Muslim citizens to turn them against us, which is creating a nightmarish totalitarian state in front of our eyes with suicide bombings and medieval punishments, mass indoctrination of children, the first open slave markets in that region for a hundred years... when would they fight? At some point it's no longer about pacifism, it becomes an open declaration of nauseating moral cowardice
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    When you really think about what he is suggesting, it's so deeply dark and disturbing.



    He wants to sit down and drink tea with some people who maybe only a short while ago, were raping slaves they captured on the day they also killed their husbands, or who have come in from burning to death captured Kurdish fighters. I don't understand for a moment how you can sit down and set that aside as if it doesn't matter.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    The real question is... Who would even want to have a cup of tea with them?
    Me
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    They say you can't destroy an ideology with bombs. Except that's precisely what we did in World War 2 with Germany and Japan. We used force of arms to militarily defeat and subjugate two extremely dangerous and fanatical regimes, and forced them to reform so that today both Germany and Japan are keystones states of the Western alliance and the international multilateral system.
    Spot on


    Nazism was utterly crushed and humiliated, now they are nothing, it worked.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel Tha Bern)
    When you really think about what he is suggesting, it's so deeply dark and disturbing.

    He wants to sit down and drink tea with some people who maybe only a short while ago, were raping slaves they captured on the day they also killed their husbands, or who have come in from burning to death captured Kurdish fighters. I don't understand for a moment how you can sit down and set that aside as if it doesn't matter.
    For us it's unthinkable.

    But there's a lot less clear water between Corbyn and them than there would be between us and them. After all, Corbyn referred to Al-Qaeda in Iraq (ISIS' predecessor) as "the Iraqi resistance". Corbyn praised the Taliban as being the legitimate expression of Afghan nationalist aspirations "even if there are disagreements about the social attitudes of their leadership".

    I imagine he'd find he has a lot in common with them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    They say you can't destroy an ideology with bombs. Except that's precisely what we did in World War 2 with Germany and Japan. We used force of arms to militarily defeat and subjugate two extremely dangerous and fanatical regimes, and forced them to reform so that today both Germany and Japan are keystones states of the Western alliance and the international multilateral system.

    Thus far we have fought the war against ISIS in a very nimble and shrewd way; we've killed 27,000 of them for the loss of only 2 soldiers of the Western alliance. Clearly we have learned lessons from Iraq where American soldiers were paraded day after day in front of insurgents to be IED'd and as a result 4,000 died. This time, we are fighting in a way that plays to our advantages, not theirs.

    And honestly, if the hard left wouldn't fight now, when it involves an enemy that is a direct threat to us and which has slaughtered our citizens by the dozens in the streets of European capitals, that is conducting genocide against ethnic minorities, which is creating a nightmarish totalitarian state in front of our eyes with suicide bombings and medieval punishments, mass indoctrination of children, the first open slave markets in that region for a hundred years... when would they fight? At some point it's no longer about pacifism, it becomes an open declaration of nauseating moral cowardice
    Exactly. Problems arise when we don't achieve total victory. If we negotiate or compromise with ISIS, if such a thing is even possible, then you better believe we'll be at war with them again in a few years time. Their complete and total destruction is what we should aim for, and until Corbyn thinks up of a way to achieve that via diplomacy then lethal military force is the method we must advocate.

    The stance of the British left especially baffles me considering the Kurdish groups that control Kurdistan and Rojava are both left-wing secular revolutionary groups literally fighting for their survival in the face of rampant oppression. You'd think the chance to show solidarity would be right up Corbyn's street. What happened to the spirit that saw thousands of leftist Brits sign up to fight against Franco with 500 giving their lives for the cause?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Exactly. Problems arise when we don't achieve total victory. If we negotiate or compromise with ISIS, if such a thing is even possible, then you better believe we'll be at war with them again in a few years time. Their complete and total destruction is what we should aim for, and until Corbyn thinks up of a way to achieve that via diplomacy then lethal military force is the method we must advocate.

    The stance of the British left especially baffles me considering the Kurdish groups that control Kurdistan and Rojava are both left-wing secular revolutionary groups literally fighting for their survival in the face of rampant oppression. You'd think the chance to show solidarity would be right up Corbyn's street. What happened to the spirit that saw thousands of leftist Brits sign up to fight against Franco with 500 giving their lives for the cause?
    Nailed it. Of course, this is the mental illness of the regressive hard left; can they truly be considered to be part of the progressive cause? They will align themselves with fascist and retrograde forces if said forces are opposed to the West and/or a client state of Russia. The latter comes from a bizarre sort of political nostalgia for the Soviet Union

    Oh they will give lip service to the Kurdish revolution. But when it comes to actually providing the material support which the Kurds have repeatedly said publicly is vital to their survival in the fight against ISIS (in the form of airstrikes, training and weapons), the hard left will claim up and offer platitudes about cutting off funding and diplomatic isolation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    X
    Oh, I thought you might find this interesting. Footage of ISIS forces fleeing in a battle with the Syrian Arab Army (not my favourite group, by any means; I have sympathies for the truly secular, nationalist elements of the Syrian revolution).

    But it shows how far ISIS morale has fallen from the blitzkrieg days of summer 2014



    Did you see the thread about the marine who was killed, and the huge US air attack on ISIS' Mosul HQ in response?

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3964431
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Oh, I thought you might find this interesting. Footage of ISIS forces fleeing in a battle with the Syrian Arab Army (not my favourite group, by any means; I have sympathies for the truly secular, nationalist elements of the Syrian revolution).

    But it shows how far ISIS morale has fallen from the blitzkrieg days of summer 2014



    Did you see the thread about the marine who was killed, and the huge US air attack on ISIS' Mosul HQ in response?

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3964431
    Second best thing to dead Daesh is Daesh fleeing for their lives!
    I remember watching a VICE documentary about the Peshmerga fighting against ISIS a while back and was glad to see they had no fear of ISIS. They were even laughing at how inept a lot of the ISIS fighters they had killed were. I think part of the reason ISIS was so successful back then against the likes of the Iraqi army but struggled against the Kurds was almost solely down to the fear factor. Now that is gone hopefully we can get some serious momentum going against them.

    Didn't see it, hadn't even heard that news, having a look through now.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    She may be seen as barking by some, but some much more middle of the road people have been talking about negotiating with ISIS. One is Jonathan Powell, former special adviser to the PM at number 10, diplomat and chief negotiator in Northern Ireland. The Telegraph don't mention that in their piece.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...ations/423432/

    I'm not saying he's right, but the problem is to what extent ISIS are seen as irretrievably nuts and therefore incapable of being dealt with or if they can somehow be reasoned with in the future.

    The religious zealotry masks the fact that many of them are disaffected Baathists from Iraq who perhaps could come to some sort of settlement. Given that other countries like NATO member (and supposed ally) Turkey and some Gulf states have been supporting ISIS at different points and probably still do, it isn't as straightforward as it may sometimes appear.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    She may be seen as barking by some, but some much more middle of the road people have been talking about negotiating with ISIS. One is Jonathan Powell, former special adviser to the PM at number 10, diplomat and chief negotiator in Northern Ireland. The Telegraph don't mention that in their piece.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...ations/423432/

    I'm not saying he's right, but the problem is to what extent ISIS are seen as irretrievably nuts and therefore incapable of being dealt with or if they can somehow be reasoned with in the future.

    The religious zealotry masks the fact that many of them are disaffected Baathists from Iraq who perhaps could come to some sort of settlement. Given that other countries like NATO member (and supposed ally) Turkey and some Gulf states have been supporting ISIS at different points and probably still do, it isn't as straightforward as it may sometimes appear.
    these nutjobs are not like Labour Party nutjobs who just want a comfortable existence pretending to be working class. instead they want to bring about the end of civilization with their version of Armageddon at Dabiq.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The religious zealotry masks the fact that many of them are disaffected Baathists from Iraq who perhaps could come to some sort of settlement.
    You say that like the fact that they're disaffected Ba'athists is some kind of mitigating factor, as if it makes them somehow more reasonable and more amenable to negotiation, or somehow less culpable for the mass murder, the mass rapes and enslavements (not to mention it would be utterly contrary to international law and our Genocide Convention obligations)

    There can be no question of anyone involved in the leadership of ISIS having any legitimate seat at a bargaining table. To the extent that there are Sunni grievances, you should pay attention to the developments in that area (a new federal structure is being negotiated to allow Anbar a form of autonomy similar to the Kurds. And there already are elected Sunni governors in those areas, and Sunni tribal leaders who are contributing troops and who take up policing Sunni areas after the Iraqi Army has reconquered it from ISIS).

    The idea that those legitimate, elected sunni forces and the tribal leaders (many of whom have had their entire families killed by ISIS as punishment for opposing them... in some areas hundreds of members of a single clan have been killed) should be pushed aside to do some kind of shoddy deal with the ex-Ba'athist fascists who first raped Iraq for decades and then hit it the second time with the AQI/ISIS insurgency that ripped it apart... that is unconscionable.

    Not only is it gravely immoral, it's also a bizarre suggestion given there's nothing those ex-Ba'athist/ISIS leaders could bring to the table in terms of integrating Sunnis that the legitimate Sunni forces can't. It makes no strategic sense whatsoever

    (Interested to hear your views on this, pol pot noodles)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    You say that like the fact that they're disaffected Ba'athists is some kind of mitigating factor, as if it makes them somehow more reasonable and more amenable to negotiation, or somehow less culpable for the mass murder, the mass rapes and enslavements (not to mention it would be utterly contrary to international law and our Genocide Convention obligations)

    There can be no question of anyone involved in the leadership of ISIS having any legitimate seat at a bargaining table. To the extent that there are Sunni grievances, you should pay attention to the developments in that area (a new federal structure is being negotiated to allow Anbar a form of autonomy similar to the Kurds. And there already are elected Sunni governors in those areas, and Sunni tribal leaders who are contributing troops and who take up policing Sunni areas after the Iraqi Army has reconquered it from ISIS).

    The idea that those legitimate, elected sunni forces and the tribal leaders (many of whom have had their entire families killed by ISIS as punishment for opposing them... in some areas hundreds of members of a single clan have been killed) should be pushed aside to do some kind of shoddy deal with the ex-Ba'athist fascists who first raped Iraq for decades and then hit it the second time with the AQI/ISIS insurgency that ripped it apart... that is unconscionable.

    Not only is it gravely immoral, it's also a bizarre suggestion given there's nothing those ex-Ba'athist/ISIS leaders could bring to the table in terms of integrating Sunnis that the legitimate Sunni forces can't. It makes no strategic sense whatsoever

    (Interested to hear your views on this, pol pot noodles)
    I agree 100% that it would be grossly immoral and bizarre.

    What I was highlighting was that in the world of Realpolitik, nonetheless, that is exactly what some fairly mainstream establishment people will be actively considering, if there is someone to be negotiated with and the consequences are less dire than the alternatives. I mentioned the vile Baathists and their murderous and cynical manipulation of the situation only to illustrate that some of the enemies are not engaged for religious reasons, so it isn't all just some unresolvable mad holy war situation. I agree that a 'resolution' meaning signing a deal with some of Saddam's former henchmen isn't exactly an ideal outcome. :rolleyes:

    I think the reality on the ground is that ISIS aren't going away, no matter how much bluster there is on that subject from our various leaders, without a major ground offensive. At the moment, the only people engaged in that are the Russians and Syrians. A future reality with Assad back in control appears to be the end game that our marvellously moral leaders are bowing to, albeit with a negotiated territory for the ISIS whackjobs. The west shows no real final commitment to destroy ISIS, despite all the rhetoric.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 21, 2016
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.